What happens when you refuse to pose for TSA or be sexually molested to fly.

[mpicco]

That page states the fuel use for a 747 at 2.6l/100pkm. While that figure is lower than the Lufthansa figure, it can still be achieved easily by a regular car. Take my Octavia, it averages 7l/100km. To get under 2.6l/100pkm you only need to load it up with three occupants.
I have my doubts about the 2.6l/100km figure though. They give this as a source. That page says the range is 13450km, it seats up to 524 passengers, and the fuel capacity is 216840l. That's 7047800pkm with 216840l, or 3.1l/100pkm. That's fully seated obviously, fully seated my car only uses 1.4l/100pkm - less than half the fuel. If I had bought a TDI that figure could go down to 1l/100pkm, or a third of the fuel of a 747.

For trains, take a look at the middle of the trains section in your link for an example of a diesel-powered train from Colorado that got measured. They arrived at a fully-seated-figure of 0.5l/100pkm, six times better than the 747.

You can't compare your Octavia with a extreme long haul 744. The shortest trip they use the 400s is like 2000 miles, otherwise it's not worth it, they use smaller more efficient planes for that. Yes, your Octavia might be a little more efficient, but in the kind of trips airplanes do, it's just not practical. If you want to do a 13450 km trip in your Octavia, go for it. I doubt it'd make it to the end in one piece let alone economically.

Neither are the trains tested which are not long haul, they're commuter trains. You need to look at long distance trains like the TGV which have such stupid schedules they're mostly empty, so there goes their efficiency.

Anyway this doesn't matter for this thread.

 

[Plissken]

That page states the fuel use for a 747 at 2.6l/100pkm. While that figure is lower than the Lufthansa figure, it can still be achieved easily by a regular car. Take my Octavia, it averages 7l/100km. To get under 2.6l/100pkm you only need to load it up with three occupants.
I have my doubts about the 2.6l/100km figure though. They give this as a source. That page says the range is 13450km, it seats up to 524 passengers, and the fuel capacity is 216840l. That's 7047800pkm with 216840l, or 3.1l/100pkm. That's fully seated obviously, fully seated my car only uses 1.4l/100pkm - less than half the fuel. If I had bought a TDI that figure could go down to 1l/100pkm, or a third of the fuel of a 747.

Good point, but the logical rebuttal is that you are using a third of the fuel to travel about 15% of the speed.

 

[thevictor390]

That page states the fuel use for a 747 at 2.6l/100pkm. While that figure is lower than the Lufthansa figure, it can still be achieved easily by a regular car. Take my Octavia, it averages 7l/100km. To get under 2.6l/100pkm you only need to load it up with three occupants.
I have my doubts about the 2.6l/100km figure though. They give this as a source. That page says the range is 13450km, it seats up to 524 passengers, and the fuel capacity is 216840l. That's 7047800pkm with 216840l, or 3.1l/100pkm. That's fully seated obviously, fully seated my car only uses 1.4l/100pkm - less than half the fuel. If I had bought a TDI that figure could go down to 1l/100pkm, or a third of the fuel of a 747.

For trains, take a look at the middle of the trains section in your link for an example of a diesel-powered train from Colorado that got measured. They arrived at a fully-seated-figure of 0.5l/100pkm, six times better than the 747.




One thing you could deduce from that is "great airport security", another could be "different modes of attack used instead".

I hate to move the discussion further from the topic, but planes fly.... well, they fly. In a straight line. Don't have to follow roads or stop. A 600 km plane flight would require a longer physical distance to complete by car.

Plus, you have to take into account that travel time is drastically lessened. I mean, you could walk/bike everywhere and use zero fuel.

 

[Blind_Io]

One thing you could deduce from that is "great airport security", another could be "different modes of attack used instead".

Shoe-bomber - Airport security failed, passengers subdued him
Underwear-bomber - Airport security failed, passengers subdued him.

Airport security, as it is now, is passive. Passive systems are easy to defeat. It ensures that the terrorists planning attacks are always on the offensive, and therefore have the initiative.

The fact is that, for the most part, Al Qaeda has moved past airports and aircraft and on to other targets. A repeat of September 11th isn't going to happen, not because of airport security, but because the passengers on the aircraft simply won't tolerate another attack.

 

[narf]

You can't compare your Octavia with a extreme long haul 744. The shortest trip they use the 400s is like 2000 miles, otherwise it's not worth it, they use smaller more efficient planes for that. Yes, your Octavia might be a little more efficient, but in the kind of trips airplanes do, it's just not practical. If you want to do a 13450 km trip in your Octavia, go for it. I doubt it'd make it to the end in one piece let alone economically.

Smaller planes use less fuel than larger planes, but the fuel per passenger kilometre figure is roughly the same. Usually they run A321s for shorter trips around here, they just get under 3l/100pkm. Incidentally, I've also been on 747s for Frankfurt to Hamburg, probably they were just moving that plane there anyways. Was roughly 30% filled.

Neither are the trains tested which are not long haul, they're commuter trains. You need to look at long distance trains like the TGV which have such stupid schedules they're mostly empty, so there goes their efficiency.

The wiki link does state a figure for our ICE trains, which are long haul trains, they say 19-33kWh/km, I'll use the worst number. Depending on the generation they seat 400 to 800 passengers, at 400 that's 8.25kWh/100pkm. In petrol equivalent terms that's 0.9l/100pkm.

Good point, but the logical rebuttal is that you are using a third of the fuel to travel about 15% of the speed.

Obviously. My point was planes are not more environmentally friendly than trains or cars.

Planes fly.... well, they fly. In a straight line. Don't have to follow roads or stop. A 600 km plane flight would require a longer physical distance to complete by car.

Plus, you have to take into account that travel time is drastically lessened. I mean, you could walk/bike everywhere and use zero fuel.

Planes do not fly in a straight line from start to finish but yeah, the distance between two cities by plane usually is less than by car. However, travel time is not necessarily reduced. To go from Hamburg city center to Frankfurt city center by car takes about four hours. To do the same journey by plane doesn't take less time. 25 minutes Hamburg city center to Hamburg airport, time spent at airport before taking off, 75 minutes for the flight itself, time spent through Frankfurt airport after touching down, 20 minutes Frankfurt airport to Frankfurt city center. That's two hours plus time spent at each airport, so the total travel time will vary between slightly faster and slightly slower.

On the bike, I do actually. Going to my Uni and back is fastest when on my bike. Taking the car is about as fast as walking, the bus is marginally slower than those two, no direct connection.


Blind_Io: My different modes of attack apply to the situation in Israel, the news often report things like rocket launches or car bombs.

 

[Blind_Io]

That's why Israel doesn't just focus on the terminal, they have security for the entire airport, including employee and service entrances and the perimeter fence. They have security for the surrounding areas and on the approach and departure flight paths.

 

[nomix]

Well, the fact that the Israeli's have been in a perpetual state of war since the founding of their nation and have not lost an aircraft or had a security breach since instituting their current security protocols counts considerably against that claim.

I laugh when I hear people talk about being afraid to travel via Ben Gurion.

 

[thevictor390]

Planes do not fly in a straight line from start to finish but yeah, the distance between two cities by plane usually is less than by car. However, travel time is not necessarily reduced. To go from Hamburg city center to Frankfurt city center by car takes about four hours. To do the same journey by plane doesn't take less time. 25 minutes Hamburg city center to Hamburg airport, time spent at airport before taking off, 75 minutes for the flight itself, time spent through Frankfurt airport after touching down, 20 minutes Frankfurt airport to Frankfurt city center. That's two hours plus time spent at each airport, so the total travel time will vary between slightly faster and slightly slower.

I was over-simplifying on the straight line, but its more direct than a car. I was also referring to long trips, several hundred kilometers. The shorter the trip the simpler the transportation you can use practically (down to your bike or walking when going to Uni for example). I agree that planes are inefficient for short distances.

 

[Blind_Io]

Well ain't this some shit?

http://consumerist.com/2010/11/you-might-be-in-serious-for-refusing-to-be-tsa-screened.html

Did you assume that once you got to the airport, if the TSA was doing something you didn't like, you could just opt-out and decide not to fly? The answer is -- nope. According to CNN and the TSA, a ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals compels all passengers to be screened, whether they fly or not. Refusing screening will result in being denied access to secure airport areas and may result in civil penalties.

?
"Advanced imaging technology screening is optional for all passengers," TSA said in a statement released Monday. "Passengers who opt out of [advanced imaging] screening will receive alternative screening, including a physical pat-down." But anyone who refuses to complete the screening process will be denied access to airport secure areas and could be subject to civil penalties, the administration said, citing a federal appeals court ruling in support of the rule.
The ruling, from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, says that "requiring that a potential passenger be allowed to revoke consent to an ongoing airport security search makes little sense in a post-9/11 world. Such a rule would afford terrorists multiple opportunities to attempt to penetrate airport security by 'electing not to fly' on the cusp of detection until a vulnerable portal is found."

?
​

Meanwhile, backlash against the new scanners is growing. A "We Won't Fly" day of protest has been established and the issue now has its own website.

 

[narf]

I was over-simplifying on the straight line, but its more direct than a car. I was also referring to long trips, several hundred kilometers. The shorter the trip the simpler the transportation you can use practically (down to your bike or walking when going to Uni for example). I agree that planes are inefficient for short distances.

Hamburg-Frankfurt is several hundred kilometres 500km by car, 411km direct line from airport to airport.

 

[h-p]

Well ain't this some shit?

http://consumerist.com/2010/11/you-might-be-in-serious-for-refusing-to-be-tsa-screened.html

So basically that just says that you have to be screened if you go to the terminal?
Sounds pretty normal to me.

------------

Funny thing that when I flew with my sisters husband, who works at airport as a border guard (at the terminal, 9mm pistol etc.) he was patted-down when he went through security. Yeah he's the terrorist, but only on free time. :lol: They waived me through with just metal detector on both ends (Finland, Germany), while both on front and back of me had a pat-down. Guess I don't look that threatning.

 

[thevictor390]

Hamburg-Frankfurt is several hundred kilometres 500km by car, 411km direct line from airport to airport.

Well I certainly hope you don't bike to Uni in Hamburg from your home in Frankfurt, despite considerable fuel savings

 

[narf]

Well I certainly hope you don't bike to Uni in Hamburg from your home in Frankfurt, despite considerable fuel savings

Obviously not. It's a distance where a car can be more efficient than a plane and not slower, and a train is more efficient and faster than a plane, it takes 3h25m.

 

[Blind_Io]

So basically that just says that you have to be screened if you go to the terminal?
Sounds pretty normal to me.

------------

Funny thing that when I flew with my sisters husband, who works at airport as a border guard (at the terminal, 9mm pistol etc.) he was patted-down when he went through security. Yeah he's the terrorist, but only on free time. :lol: They waived me through with just metal detector on both ends (Finland, Germany), while both on front and back of me had a pat-down. Guess I don't look that threatning.

No, it says that once you get in line for screening you must be screened, even if you have decided not to enter the sterile area.

 

[h-p]

No, it says that once you get in line for screening you must be screened, even if you have decided not to enter the sterile area.

Ah, okay, I read that too fast. I thought first that they would only deny access to the terminal at that time.

 

[otispunkmeyer]

US airport security is absolutely daft. In florida last year, I remember 3 maybe 4 bag checks and scanners an that was getting off the damn plane!! Also bag checks at every single theme park. Now I understand, for a terrorist, Disney Land must be like getting all your birthdays at once, but seriously what good is a 80 yr old pensioner with barely the strength to open the bag wide enough to sift through going to do about it? JACK SHIT is what.

I suppose it gives the thick ones something to look at, and think yes they are protecting us

 

[narf]

what good is a 80 yr old pensioner with barely the strength to open the bag wide enough to sift through going to do about it?

Make the insurance company happy?

 

[Firecat]

There are some articles out that are discussing the health risks associated with these machines (skin cancer). So it's not only a matter of privacy.

And for the record, they don't have to cup your balls when they physically search you. They are only doing it as punishment for opting out...or to scare people into using the machines.

 

[D-Fence]

You know, after reading all this TSA crap lately, all I can say is: The terrorists have won, big time. When our civil rights are kicked in the dirt by the people protecting us, what good is their protection? I rather take the tiny risk of being killed by some extremist asshole than to give up all what we stand for, liberty, civil rights, freedom of the individual. I have no problem with metal scanners, cameras or REGULAR pat-downs or my luggage being scanned, but getting cancer from scanners and being fondled is nto really an alternative. Seriously, if the scanner-craze keeps growing, at some point in 50 years we will say "remember 9/11 when the terrorists only killed 3000 people? TSA already killed 20.000 by cancer by now." And seriously, if someone wants to blow something (and himself) up, do you think he is scared to swallow/insert/shove up his terrorarse explosives? When is the full rectal probing coming TSA? Maybe cut the passengers open, to see if they hide some explosives under their skin too......

 

[jmsprovan]

US airport security is absolutely daft. In florida last year, I remember 3 maybe 4 bag checks and scanners an that was getting off the damn plane!! Also bag checks at every single theme park. Now I understand, for a terrorist, Disney Land must be like getting all your birthdays at once, but seriously what good is a 80 yr old pensioner with barely the strength to open the bag wide enough to sift through going to do about it? JACK SHIT is what.

I suppose it gives the thick ones something to look at, and think yes they are protecting us

the bag checks at the theme parks are to make sure you aren't bringing in any food, cause they might lose some profit in that way vOv

I was in Florida this summer and getting off the plane we only had to walk through some offline metal detectors while they chose people at random to check, when leaving there was only one security check to get to the departure lounge, stop exaggerating.

but getting cancer from scanners and being fondled is nto really an alternative. Seriously, if the scanner-craze keeps growing, at some point in 50 years we will say "remember 9/11 when the terrorists only killed 3000 people? TSA already killed 20.000 by cancer by now."

seriously?